In the world of X-men, random people get random powers. Some can control minds, some can shoot frikken laser beams out of their eyes, and probably out there somewhere is a mutant who can turn his fingernails over. Two of the three are inherently dangerous to the random person on the street, but also to humanity in general. What does it mean, this mutant change? Are they no longer human? Are they going to replace us?
Yes yes I sound like a nazi apologist. But Jews and gays weren’t actually going to replace the “us”. Gayzer beams weren’t a real thing that could kill Germans walking down the street. Despite what MAGA thinks, Jewish space lasers are not creating floods in Texas. Can you say the same for mutants? (Storm, do you have anything to add?)
And so, to the mutant who can turn his fingernails around, what about him? Sure, his mutation is useless, but what about his children? In a hundred years, humanity as we know it could be replaced by “mutants”. Maybe that’s not a bad thing. But it’s a thing, and wars have been fought over less. People will say, “what about my kids?”
eta: to a greater extent, from another franchise, the Wizarding world is unstable. A minority having magic ability is not going to sit by and take discrimination and witch trials and murder. They are going to take their place at the top of the heap. Or be killed en masse.
Like satire, a good deconstruction can itself be an excellent example of the genre it’s deconstructing. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is both an excellent western and a deconstruction of the genre. Of course John Ford both loved and understood westerns. For a lot of superhero deconstructions, I get the feeling the writers hate superheroes.
In the comic books, at least, there were some mutant kids at Xavier’s school whose mutant “powers” were decidedly non-combat-oriented. Cypher, for one example, had the mutant ability of being able to understand every language.
My understanding of Magneto’s superpower, at least in some iterations, is that he could “summon” the metal to the surface. Even if that’s limited to just ferrous/electromagnetically affected metals he could be a one-man mining operation. Depending on the details of how he’s written that could leave higher concentrations of non-ferrous elements behind, which might make it easier to mine and refine those, and of course the specific locations would be known pretty precisely.
In a hundred years, humanity as we know it will be replaced. Period. That’s a fundamental fact of life. That’s the insidious thing about Replacement Theory: It’s true, it always has been true, and it can’t possibly not be true. Replacement Theory resonates so strongly with people, fundamentally, because we’re all afraid of our own mortality.
In THE GOLDEN AGE, the variation on this theme is that one costumed super returns from Europe to, well, a hero’s welcome as a highly-decorated operative who’d done some amazing things behind enemy lines during WWII: he promptly ditches the mask and parlays that fame into a Senate seat, and on his way to an anticipated presidential run in ‘52 (a) starts recruiting other supers to likewise reveal their secret identities, by officially going to work for the US government, and (b) starts laying McCarthy-esque groundwork for yet other costumed supers to, y’know, show up in Washington on thus and such a date to give some reassuring answers to Congressmen who have some questions, it’s not a big deal yet, there’s no requirement backed by the force of law yet, and, hey, as long as everyone is obliging about this, well, maybe this will stay amicable and no over-the-top plot twists will ensue!
And the whole secrecy thing turns out to just be for the plebs, because the Minister of Magic tells the Prime Minister all about the Wizarding World and even about Voldemort. You’d think the PM would put MI6 on Voldemort right away. And Voldy looks down on Muggles so much, he’d probably never even think to look up a spell to stop a supersonic bullet.
Only because of a Supreme Court ruling that held that bail bondsmen or their duly authorized representatives are technically acting as officers of the court; and that part of the bond agreement is the bondee signing onto essentially “I am giving you permission to enter any premises I’ve been admitted to in order to return me to custody”. A bondee is the closest thing to a legal slave that still exists in American jurisprudence; the bond holder literally owns their freedom.
The basic morality play theme of superheroes vs. supervillains is this: People acquire extraordinary power; either paranormal abilities or occasionally advanced tech beyond anything available to the government. The supervillains are those who use this to defy social constraints and take whatever they want. The superheroes are those who choose to serve as champions and paladins of those weaker than themselves. Typically it’s depicted that while the government isn’t exactly thrilled about costumed vigilantes, they’re preferable to having criminals that the law is openly helpless against running loose.
IANAL but I’m surprised that holds up. I can see it applying in premises that the bondee owns or rents themselves but how would it apply if they’re in somebody else’s house? I would have thought you needed the permission of the premises’ owner to enter without a warrant not the permission of somebody who’s just visiting the premises.
Is that a legal thing? If I give permission for one person to enter my property can they then give permission for other people to do so? I thought that as the property owner I retained the right to deny access to anybody and each person who wants to enter my property needs my permission.
If such a chain of permission is legal, what happens if I break the first link? Let’s say I give Joe permission to walk around on my land. Joe then invites ten of his friends to join him. I get angry and withdraw Joe’s permission to be on my land. Joe has to leave to avoid trespassing charges. Does this mean the other ten people also have to leave? Or can they claim that they can still stay on my land because they got permission from Joe not me and Joe didn’t tell them they needed to leave?
Well if you’re sufficiently p.o.'d at your guest for drawing a bounty hunter down on your heads that you kick him or her out, that’s fine as far as the bounty hunter goes. I would suppose (but real lawyer needed to chime in here) that the law doesn’t protect people who are harboring fugitives from justice. But just as repo men are perfectly legally entitled to take back the bank’s automobile but nonetheless might face hostile confrontations when they try, bounty hunters are looking for a payday not a brawl or a fire fight.
If I’m harboring a fugitive, I may be subject to criminal charges. But that doesn’t mean I give up my rights as a homeowner. The police need either my permission or a warrant so they can enter my home in order to arrest me for harboring a fugitive. (There are exceptions but let’s put those aside for the sake of this discussion.)
I would guess that the bond agreement, signed by all parties involved and okayed by the court that bail was paid to, is legally considered to constitute a standing warrant.
In that case, the duly appointed officer of the court is removing a trespasser from your property.
Those two also killed almost no-one (and certainly not on screen)- and had little property damage by throwing villains thru a building, ect
The Slovakia accords were bogus- the Avengers- including some of the smartest dudes around- just sat there and them them blame stuff- like in NYC “Okay, yeah, in destroying the alien invasion, we smashed some buildings- would you rather us let them invade” and “Yes, the Scarlet Witch moved SOMEBODY’S ELSE’S bom from the ground so it wouldnt kill as many innocents- what would you have had us do instead?”
Supe dont even generally arrest the perps- they stop the crime, then hand over the perp to some police. They also often help with natural disasters.
Several versions.
Yep. In the 1978 Superman film, he even rescued a cat from a tree, stopped two aircraft crashes, and stopped several crimes.